Litigation
PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC et al. v. LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC et al.
Active2:25-cv-00522
- Filed
- 2025-06-24
Patents at issue (1)
Plaintiffs (4)
Summary
Plaintiffs PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC, PROFRAC MANUFACTURING, LLC, U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC, and U.S. WELL SERVICES HOLDINGS, LLC sued LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC, LIBERTY ENERGY, INC., and LIBERTY ADVANCED EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC for infringement of US patent 11009162, seeking a permanent injunction. The case is active in the Eastern District of Texas.
Case overview & background
Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.
US11009162B2 - Method and system for operating a hydraulic fracturing system - Google Patents
(May 18 2021) Abstract
Key legal developments & outcome
Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.
The case "PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC et al. v. LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC et al.", Case number: 2:25-cv-00522, was filed on June 24, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. This litigation involves alleged infringement of US patent 11009162. As of the current date (May 26, 2026), the case is active.
Given the relatively recent filing date, detailed information on later stages like trial, verdict, or appeal is unlikely to be available yet. My search will focus on initial pleadings, any substantial pre-trial motions, claim construction scheduling, and any parallel PTAB proceedings.
Here's a breakdown of the key legal developments so far:
1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:
- 2025-06-24: Plaintiffs PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC, PROFRAC MANUFACTURING, LLC, U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC, and U.S. WELL SERVICES HOLDINGS, LLC filed a complaint against LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC, LIBERTY ENERGY, INC., and LIBERTY ADVANCED EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of US Patent 11009162 and seeking a permanent injunction.
2. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
- A search of the USPTO PTAB database for patent 11009162 did not immediately reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings as of the current date.
Due to the limited time since the case was filed (less than a year), it is probable that the litigation is still in its early stages, likely involving initial discovery, scheduling, and potentially early motions, but not yet reaching claim construction, summary judgment, or trial. Without direct PACER access or specific legal news articles detailing docket events for this precise case number, further specific developments beyond the filing cannot be detailed at this time.The patent infringement litigation, PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC et al. v. LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC et al., Case number 2:25-cv-00522, commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, on June 24, 2025. The case remains active as of May 26, 2026.
Here are the key legal developments to date:
1. Filing & Initial Pleadings
- 2025-06-24: Plaintiffs PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC, PROFRAC MANUFACTURING, LLC, U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC, and U.S. WELL SERVICES HOLDINGS, LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint against LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC, LIBERTY ENERGY, INC., and LIBERTY ADVANCED EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC. The complaint alleges infringement of US Patent 11009162 and seeks, among other remedies, a permanent injunction.
2. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings
- A review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database at the USPTO did not identify any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings concerning US Patent 11009162.
Given the case's filing date in June 2025, it is currently in its relatively early stages. Specific details regarding subsequent pleadings (such as answers or counterclaims), substantial pre-trial motions (like motions to dismiss or transfer), claim construction proceedings (Markman), discovery milestones, or any trial events are not publicly detailed through general search avenues at this time. The litigation has not yet reached a final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.
Plaintiff representatives
Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
- King & Spalding
- Thomas M. Melsheimer · Lead Counsel
- Rex A. Mann · Counsel
The plaintiff(s) in PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC et al. v. LIBERTY ENERGY SERVICES LLC et al. are represented by the following counsel:
Thomas M. Melsheimer
- Role: Lead Counsel (Trial Lawyer)
- Firm: King & Spalding, Dallas, Texas
- Experience Note: Thomas Melsheimer is the Global Head of Trial and Managing Partner of the Dallas office at King & Spalding. He is a highly accomplished trial lawyer with extensive jury trial experience across various claims, including patent infringement, and has been recognized as one of the nation's leading trial lawyers. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, and securities claims.
Rex A. Mann
- Role: Counsel
- Firm: King & Spalding, Dallas, Texas
- Experience Note: Rex Mann is a trial lawyer focusing on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. He has extensive experience in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, and his engineering background allows him to deeply understand clients' technologies.
Ahtoosa A. Dale was previously listed as counsel for the plaintiffs but filed an unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney, which was granted by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on July 24, 2025.
Defendant representatives
Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).
- Shook, Hardy & Bacon
- Robert H. Reckers · lead counsel
- B. Trent Webb · lead trial counsel
- David Wynne Morehan · counsel
- Zachary M. Mass · counsel
- Christopher P. Galligan · counsel
- Gillam & Smith
- Melissa Richards Smith · local counsel
I'll research the defendant's counsel of record. Let me run several searches.
Good leads. Let me dig into the specific attorneys and firm affiliations.
Let me pull the fuller docket and confirm the local counsel and any in-house appearances.
Defense counsel of record — Liberty Energy Services LLC, Liberty Energy, Inc., and Liberty Advanced Equipment Technologies LLC
Bottom line: All three Liberty defendants are represented in this district-court case by Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., with Houston partner Robert H. Reckers designated Lead Attorney on the first joint filing. The trial team is led nationally by B. Trent Webb (SHB's IP Litigation Practice Group chair, Kansas City), supported by SHB attorneys in Houston, Kansas City, and Chicago. Liberty's PTAB work is handled by a different firm (Baker Botts), so do not conflate the two teams.
The core sourcing is Docket Entry 5, the Joint (Agreed) Motion for Entry of Docket Control Order, filed 6/24/2025 (Case 2:25-cv-00522-JRG-RSP, Doc. 5, PageID 157), which carries the defense signature block. A copy is publicly available as Exhibit 2009 in IPR2025-01424 (Liberty Energy Services LLC v. U.S. Well Services, LLC). The companion Scheduling Order (Doc. 7, 6/25/2025) is likewise available as Exhibit 2004 in that IPR.
Counsel table
| Attorney | Role | Firm / office | Note on patent-litigation experience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robert H. ("Rob") Reckers | Lead Attorney (per Doc. 5; Tex. Bar No. 24039520) | Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., 600 Travis St., Suite 3400, Houston, TX 77002 (rreckers@shb.com) | Registered patent attorney; Best Lawyers in America (Litigation–IP, Litigation–Patent, Patent Law) since 2022. Liberty's lead defense counsel in the parallel S.D. Tex. action U.S. Well Services v. Liberty Energy, No. 4:24-cv-00839-KPE, and Liberty's district-court-side contact in IPRs (his SHB email appears in the Markman scheduling correspondence filed as Ex. 1052 in IPR2025-00066). |
| B. (Basil) Trent Webb | Lead trial counsel; first defense appearance — Doc. 3 (6/16/2025), "on behalf of All Defendants" | Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., 2555 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64108 (bwebb@shb.com); Mo. Bar No. 40778 | Chair of SHB's IP Litigation Practice Group and member of its Executive Committee; lead trial counsel in 150+ IP cases with $1B+ in verdicts/settlements (e.g., Sprint Communications v. Vonage — $69.5M; Sprint v. Time Warner Cable — ~$140M); defense verdicts for Nike and Coca-Cola. Admitted pro hac vice in the related S.D. Tex. case (Doc. 15 there). |
| David Wynne Morehan | Counsel (signature block, Doc. 5; Tex. Bar No. 24065790) | Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Houston | Appears for the Liberty defendants across the related Texas suits (also listed on the S.D. Tex. docket; Notice of Appearance there filed 5/2/2024). |
| Zachary M. Mass | Counsel / associate (signature block, Doc. 5; Mo. Bar No. 77013) | Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City | Liberty defense team member in the E-Frac patent litigation family. |
| Christopher P. Galligan | Counsel (signature block, Doc. 5; Ill. Bar No. 6317988) | Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., 111 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 4700, Chicago, IL | Member of the SHB team defending Liberty in the ProFrac/USWS e-frac patent campaign. |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Local counsel (EDTX) | Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, TX | One of the Eastern District's most established local-counsel practitioners; she is grouped with the Liberty defendants in PacerMonitor's counsel listing for this case — see caveat below. |
| (Tanya L. Chaney) | SHB Houston; not confirmed on this docket | Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Houston | Appeared for Liberty in S.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-00839. I found no notice of appearance by her in 2:25-cv-00522; do not list her as counsel of record here without PACER confirmation. |
In-house counsel: No in-house attorney has entered an appearance on this docket. I found no evidence of one, and I will not guess at Liberty's legal-department personnel.
Separately: Liberty's PTAB counsel (different firm — not district-court counsel of record)
Liberty Energy Inc. / Liberty Energy Services LLC are represented before the Board by Baker Botts L.L.P., Dallas, per Petitioners' Power of Attorney (IPR2025-01424, Paper 2, 8/27/2025):
- Chad C. Walters (Reg. No. 48,022) — lead counsel
- Joseph Andrew Grado (Reg. No. 80,316) — backup
- Jacob McDonald (Reg. No. 74,336) — backup
- Melissa L. Muenks (Reg. No. 78,860, Austin office) — backup
Liberty's IPR filings against the U.S. Well Services / ProFrac e-frac family include IPR2025-01424 ('801), IPR2025-00066, IPR2025-00139 ('878), and IPR2024-01274 ('992) — these are relevant to the defense posture, but Shook Hardy (not Baker Botts) is the district-court team here.
Flagged contradictions and caveats
- Case status — metadata says "Active"; the docket says otherwise. PacerMonitor's docket sheet for 2:25-cv-00522 shows: Doc. 21, Joint Motion to Stay pending Settlement by All Defendants (2/13/2026); Doc. 22, order granting the stay (Mag. J. Payne, 2/17/2026); Doc. 23, Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by plaintiffs' counsel Rex A. Mann (3/19/2026); and Doc. 24, "ORDER DISMISSING CASE… Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/24/2026." PacerMonitor also shows a termination date of 3/24/2026. Per the operating rules I treat the case metadata as authoritative for caption/court/number/patents, but this status discrepancy is material and should be flagged: as of today (2026-09-27) the case appears to have been dismissed ~6 months ago, not "Active." The previously generated "Key legal developments" section (written as of 5/26/2026) also states the case was still active and that no Markman/dispositive events had occurred — that is contradicted by Docs. 7, 18–24 (first amended DCO 12/19/2025; claim-construction and expert deadlines running through mid-2026; settlement stay, then dismissal).
- Filing date. The metadata says filed 6/24/2025; the docket shows the case was severed and opened 5/13/2025 via "ORDER TO SEVER AND OPENED NEW CASE" signed by Mag. J. Payne on 5/11/2025 (Doc. 1). The 6/24/2025 date corresponds to the first substantive joint filing (Doc. 5). Also, RPX/Unified Patents list six patents-in-suit, while the metadata lists only US 11,009,162 — the complaint excerpt of record discusses the '801, '420 and '162 patents and accuses Liberty's "digiTechnologies" (digiPrime, digiFrac, digiPower, digiWire).
- Local counsel attribution (Melissa Richards Smith). My evidence that she is on the defense side is PacerMonitor's grouping of her under the Liberty defendants' "Represented By" block; I could not pull the underlying appearance notice text before running out of search steps. Treat her local-counsel role as high-confidence but not docket-text-verified, and confirm on PACER.
- Earlier section on plaintiff counsel appears misattributed. The signature block in Doc. 5 lists Thomas M. Melsheimer (TMelsheimer@winston.com) and Rex A. Mann (RMann@winston.com) — i.e., Winston & Strawn LLP, not King & Spalding as the earlier section states. Notably, J. Tyler Boyce and Courtney Block are King & Spalding (kslaw.com) and appear on the plaintiff side (Boyce's K&S bio expressly lists "ProFrac Services LLC v. Liberty Energy Services LLC"; Block filed a pro hac vice appearance at Doc. 17, and Alexander Maciej Nowakowski was terminated on plaintiffs' unopposed withdrawal motion, Doc. 13–14). So ProFrac is represented by both Winston & Strawn and King & Spalding — the earlier section's firm attribution for Melsheimer/Mann should be corrected.
- Docket-number caution. Some third-party aggregators (e.g., Ex Parte's AI-generated docket summaries) mis-state the opening date as 6/24/2025 and the filing date as 5/13/2025 interchangeably. The document citations above (Doc. 3, 5, 7, 13–14, 17–24) are the ones I can tie to a specific filing text or exhibit.
Because no PACER subscription was available here, the counsel list above is drawn from (a) the defendants' own signature block reproduced in district-court Doc. 5 (Ex. 2009 in IPR2025-01424), (b) the appearance notice at Doc. 3, and (c) PacerMonitor/Justia docket-derived counsel listings. Sealed filings, if any, would not appear in these sources.